Re: [asa] Space compression

From: George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Sun Oct 28 2007 - 17:58:54 EDT

Jim,

I'll prime the pump with my amateur astronomy skills....

Two simple arguments against any 6000 or so light year universe, for those
who still hold to that idea, are:

1) The Hubble has taken images of very deep space that demonstrates the
ability for us to behold more than 100 billion galaxies. [131 billion was
the calculated number from the first famous image which revealed an
estimated 10,000 galaxies.] How do you squeeze them in a 6000 lyr radius?

2) Supernova 1987a in the nearby Magellanic dwarf galaxy has a visibile
expanding shell. Simple trigonometry demonstrates that it is ~ 168,000 lyrs
distance. Simple trig makes this measurement independent of the speed of
light.

In your example of flux intensity, are you compressing everything observed
into a small universe to obtain such a flux? I am unsure of the scenario
involved.

George A.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Armstrong" <jarmstro@qwest.net>
To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 7:58 PM
Subject: [asa] Space compression

>I have a question for our astronomer friends.
>
> The good Dr. Strachan actually (unintentionally) provoked it.
>
> One of the usual arguments for an old universe has to do with the direct
> measurement of the position and movements of some night-sky objects, and
> such things, all argued from the positions of science and logic.
>
> But it occurred to me to wonder exactly what some of the consequences
> would be if the intergalactic and interstellar spacings were consistent
> witha 6000 (or 10,000) year Creation.
>
> As one example, it seems to me that this might compress the distances
> between suns in a galaxy (for instance) to the point where the flux of
> stellar energy within the galaxy would not permit anything like an earth
> (or perhaps even the suns) to exist. If that is true for Andromeda (for
> example), and if there is no reason to conclude that our own galaxy is
> other than essentially similar to Andromeda, then our very existence would
> argue against the Young Earth premise.
>
> This is a little akin to the radiation intensification consequence of the
> period of accelerated radiation proposed by the RATE project.
>
> Is this radiation consequence a valid presumption? Are there other
> consequences of this temporal foreshortening?
>
> This query is by way of a continuing search for ways to fairly simply
> illustrate for a lay audience some of the simpler problems that flow very
> directly from a YEC time line.
>
> Regards - JimA [Friend of ASA]
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Oct 28 17:59:46 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Oct 28 2007 - 17:59:46 EDT